US Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Thursday afternoon that
he would recuse himself from any role in the ongoing federal
investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election.He was responding to a renewed campaign by
much of the corporate media and congressional Democrats, charging that
when Sessions gave sworn testimony at his confirmation hearing before
the Senate Judiciary Committee, he concealed his contacts with the
Russian government during the election campaign. The Washington Post
triggered a daylong media firestorm with a report posted on its web
site Wednesday night, revealing that Sessions had two encounters with
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the 2016 campaign, but had
denied any such meetings at the Judiciary Committee hearing.Leading
Democrats weighed in, with both Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer
and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi calling on Sessions to resign as
attorney general because he “lied under oath,” as Pelosi put it,
although the video and transcript of the hearing suggest that Sessions’
conduct constituted evasiveness typical of such affairs.It is
telling and remarkable that the Democrats’ fulminations against Sessions
have nothing to do with his reactionary and deeply antidemocratic
actions in the three weeks since he became attorney general.

They don't care about anything but Russia because they won't be satisfied until they've so sullied the election results with rumors and lies that they can pretend like Hillary won.

Friday, March 3, 2017. Chaos and violence, Congress goes rah-rah for
forever war on Iraq, laments that Donald Trump may be harming the
chances for a permanent US military presence in Iraq, and much more.

Senator Bob Corker: Just based on the people you talk with, you get
no sense that there's not a longer term commitment, do you? Every US
official I'm talking to understands what you just said about the fact
that we've got to be there for some time. You get no sense of that from
anyone you talk with do you, to the contrary?Hardin Lang: No, sir. I guess the question is the need to actually
sequence and start the negotiations as soon as possible, while we're
still at this moment of high level leverage.Senator Bob Corker: I think -- I think they understand what needs to
be left behind. I think those conversations are underway and I get,
uh, no sense, for what it's worth, that there's anyone that wishes to
have another 2011 type activity [the US military drawdown]. I would
just like to ask, are you'll getting any different signals from anyone?Michael Knights: So it's true that there is a new understanding and
willingness to continue the mission including with the coalition
partners as well as US.Senator Bob Corker: Yeah, no question.

Corker is the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Senator Ben
Cardin is the Ranking Member. On Tuesday, the Committee held a hearing
on Iraq and the two witnesses were The Washington Institute's Michael
Knights and the Center for American Progress' Hardin Long. And there you
have the tiny range of dialogue from the slightly right-wing Knights to
the center-right Long and the organizations they represent.

No where in the hearing were you going to get common sense.

Taken for granted was that, because billions had been spent, more billions must be spent.

And they only mentioned the money -- the four -- they didn't mention the lives lost.

The Iraq War, which hits the 14 year mark later this month, must not end.

Not only was that the only position the Committee elected to express, no one was even allowed to question that premise.

If you're an idiot who, at this late date, blames the Iraq War solely on
Republicans, let's note a few of the disgusting remarks by Ranking
Member Ben Cardin, a Democrat.

Ranking Member Ben Cardin: There's no question we've made a great
investment in Iraq and it's in our national security interest to make
sure that Iraq becomes a stable country, does not become an
Iranian-client state which is one of the fears I think many of us have.
We don't want to see the type of collapse we saw in the Iraqi Security
Forces that we saw in 2014 so it does require the attention of the
United States and our coalition partners in order to give Iraq a chance
for uh a national government to represent all of its people and a
security force that can maintain the security in the region. So I want
to point out a couple of challenges we have and then see whether you
think we should be doing. One challenge is whether we will get the
Iraqi cooperation on the maintaining of our troops or a military
presence in their country. There is political considerations here. When
the president's executive order named Iraq as one of the countries we
would not accept refugees that makes it difficult for the Iraqi
government to work with the United States on the continued military
presence. Or when statements are made about taking the Iraqi oil, that
certainly is not conducive to the type of political support that we need
from the Iraqi government.

Oh, you grand standing bitch.

As a member of the House in 2002, you represent the people and vote against the Iraq War.

Even now with Jim Moran out of office, for example, or Tammy Baldwin now a US Senator.

Where is the sanity?

The discussion in Congress currently is even more narrow than it was from 2003 to 2006.

Nothing ever gets solved but how they thunder on today as though they have answers, as though they are the solution.

They are not the solution.

They are never the solution.

Let's just use one example.

Chair Bob Corker: So let me ask you this. The Kurds are obviously
moving towards independence. We spent a great deal of time with them
[on the recent visit to Iraq]. I know they're not quite as strident
with their conversations with [Iraq's Prime Minister Hayder al-] Abadi
but they're strident when they come see us here and certainly very
strident in Kurdistan. Give us a sense of the impact of that should
they move, uhm, to uh-uh further cause themselves to be independent
from-from Baghdad.Michael Knights: So, at the moment, the discussion in Kurdistan
around independence, I think, has a very economic flavor. There's an
understanding that, if relations with Baghdad break down, the Kurds
would lose access to a number of-of economic aid supports. They would
also potentially have more complicates access to international security
assistance and that they might well face greater legal challenges at
exporting their oil. I don't detect inside the Kurdish leadership a
near term ambition to push quickly for independence -- more to kind of
negotiate a kind of amicable divorce over a period of five to ten years
with the Baghdad government.Chair Bob Corker: You want to say anything to that?Hardin Long: No, I would only add that at the moment when one spends
time in Kurdistan you get the feeling that there's a tremendous amount
of internal house cleaning that needs to be done. There's a lot of
political friction and difficulties between the different Kurdish
parties. And much of the economic state building program in Kurdistan
is on hold. Chair Bob Corker: Mmm-hmm.Hardin Long: So in terms of Kurdistan becoming a viable state
anytime in the immediate future, again, there seems to be a separation
from the rhetoric that we hear from the Kurds and then the closed door
conversations about what they really think is in the realm of the
possible.Chair Bob Corker: I think the fact that they'd have to ship their oil
through Turkey and could well become a sub-state of Turkey if they're
not careful obviously causes concern. And so to have a non amicable
relationship with Iraq would be very much not in their interest.

It is 2017.

Two weeks away from the start of this never-ending war that began in 2003.

And US politicians are still dickering around about the fate of Kurdistan?

It's the northern region, it's semi-autonomous.

The fate of the KRG should have been resolved back in 2007.

The Iraqi Constitution declared that (Article 140).

The US State Dept has never supported it while, on every other issue, insisting that 'the law' must be respected.

It's in the Iraqi Constitution.

It needs to be implemented.

But why has that not happened?

Because of the conversation we transcribed above.

Oh, no, Turkey might have a greater say . . .

It's not about peace. It's about control of the oil.

And Ben can have a fit in Congress all he wants playing the elderly drama queen.

Reality: If US President Donald Trump's remarks meant that the Iraqi
government would not allow a permanent US military presence in Iraq?
That would be a good thing.

Reality: His remarks don't matter. The US installed the Iraqi
government, it can't survive without US troops. That's why Barack was
able to get the Memo of Understanding -- that no one wants to report on
despite the fact that it continues to govern the US military presence in
Iraq. He got that after the SOFA expired.

And Nouri al-Maliki did not say "no" to renewing the SOFA, he said no to
the what he saw as the limited number of US troops Barack was offering
(that would have protected Nouri's government). Nouri did want a few
thousands, he wanted at least 15,000.

That was the breaking point.

And we should also note that over five years ago, the RAND Corporation
was noting that the unresolved issue of Kirkuk was one of the great
fault lines in any future of Iraq.

But no one pays attention until they're forced to.

When things 'calm down' in Iraq, they'll be forced to.

Chair Bob Corker: Let me ask you, the PMF. One of you mentioned
those that are aligned with Iran. Certainly, they should not be a part.
Look, most of them are aligned with Iran so? I mean there's a law
that's been passed relative to the popular mobilization forces. It
looks like they're going to be a part of the security infrastructure
there. They are very much aligned with Iran -- most of them. There are
a few that aren't, as you alluded to Mr. Lang [Long], but I mean this
is a fact of life there. I'm just wondering. Uhm - uh, I don't see
this not being a fact of life and are you guys sensing there's
something, some different outcome, that may occur with the PMF other
than them being part of the security infrastructure there?Hardin Long: I think the real danger at this stage would be if you
see the PMF -- or elements of the PMF, particularly the 3 or 4 large
ones that are backed by Iran -- the extent to which they remain outside
of the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] -- and I think that there probably is
a degree of intention inside of them to do so -- that becomes a danger
point. And then, for us, it's the danger of the investment that we make
in the Iraqi Security Forces going forward to serve as a balance
against that that becomes crucial.Michael Knights: I know that the PMF are very splintered, they're
very difficult to consolidate under one electoral banner or under one
common control arrangement. So splintering them down to their
irreconcilable elements like Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq versus other elements
related to the [Shrine?] militias -- and even Bard, there's always a
potential that a group like Badr which is the largest PMF entity could
be mainstreamed over time and could be broken down into subcomponents
with a clever policy. Also anywhere where the Iraqi Security Forces is
present, they're able to effectively counter-balance the PMF presence.
In a place like Basra for instance where there has been no major Iraqi
army since 2013, we see true breakdown and true militia control.

War Crimes don't get discussed.

Apparently, it would 'sully' the halls of Congress.

Instead we fret that the ones carrying out War Crimes are 'too close' to Iran.

It's all a big dog and pony show and it's all depressing and disgusting.

However, Congress isn't the only place for whoring.

There's always THE NEW YORK TIMES.

Judith Miller, at her worst, wasn't as bad as Rukmini Callimachi, a War
Hawk who's now covering Iraq and can't stop slobbering over the Iraqi
military -- I've been told that Rukmini has seen War Crimes carried out
as she has been embedded and has not reported those -- that comes from
two journalists in Iraq.

Friday, March 3, 2017. Chaos and violence, Congress goes rah-rah for
forever war on Iraq, laments that Donald Trump may be harming the
chances for a permanent US military presence in Iraq, and much more.

Senator Bob Corker: Just based on the people you talk with, you get
no sense that there's not a longer term commitment, do you? Every US
official I'm talking to understands what you just said about the fact
that we've got to be there for some time. You get no sense of that from
anyone you talk with do you, to the contrary?Hardin Lang: No, sir. I guess the question is the need to actually
sequence and start the negotiations as soon as possible, while we're
still at this moment of high level leverage.Senator Bob Corker: I think -- I think they understand what needs to
be left behind. I think those conversations are underway and I get,
uh, no sense, for what it's worth, that there's anyone that wishes to
have another 2011 type activity [the US military drawdown]. I would
just like to ask, are you'll getting any different signals from anyone?Michael Knights: So it's true that there is a new understanding and
willingness to continue the mission including with the coalition
partners as well as US.Senator Bob Corker: Yeah, no question.

Corker is the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Senator Ben
Cardin is the Ranking Member. On Tuesday, the Committee held a hearing
on Iraq and the two witnesses were The Washington Institute's Michael
Knights and the Center for American Progress' Hardin Long. And there you
have the tiny range of dialogue from the slightly right-wing Knights to
the center-right Long and the organizations they represent.

No where in the hearing were you going to get common sense.

Taken for granted was that, because billions had been spent, more billions must be spent.

And they only mentioned the money -- the four -- they didn't mention the lives lost.

The Iraq War, which hits the 14 year mark later this month, must not end.

Not only was that the only position the Committee elected to express, no one was even allowed to question that premise.

If you're an idiot who, at this late date, blames the Iraq War solely on
Republicans, let's note a few of the disgusting remarks by Ranking
Member Ben Cardin, a Democrat.

Ranking Member Ben Cardin: There's no question we've made a great
investment in Iraq and it's in our national security interest to make
sure that Iraq becomes a stable country, does not become an
Iranian-client state which is one of the fears I think many of us have.
We don't want to see the type of collapse we saw in the Iraqi Security
Forces that we saw in 2014 so it does require the attention of the
United States and our coalition partners in order to give Iraq a chance
for uh a national government to represent all of its people and a
security force that can maintain the security in the region. So I want
to point out a couple of challenges we have and then see whether you
think we should be doing. One challenge is whether we will get the
Iraqi cooperation on the maintaining of our troops or a military
presence in their country. There is political considerations here. When
the president's executive order named Iraq as one of the countries we
would not accept refugees that makes it difficult for the Iraqi
government to work with the United States on the continued military
presence. Or when statements are made about taking the Iraqi oil, that
certainly is not conducive to the type of political support that we need
from the Iraqi government.

Oh, you grand standing bitch.

As a member of the House in 2002, you represent the people and vote against the Iraq War.

Even now with Jim Moran out of office, for example, or Tammy Baldwin now a US Senator.

Where is the sanity?

The discussion in Congress currently is even more narrow than it was from 2003 to 2006.

Nothing ever gets solved but how they thunder on today as though they have answers, as though they are the solution.

They are not the solution.

They are never the solution.

Let's just use one example.

Chair Bob Corker: So let me ask you this. The Kurds are obviously
moving towards independence. We spent a great deal of time with them
[on the recent visit to Iraq]. I know they're not quite as strident
with their conversations with [Iraq's Prime Minister Hayder al-] Abadi
but they're strident when they come see us here and certainly very
strident in Kurdistan. Give us a sense of the impact of that should
they move, uhm, to uh-uh further cause themselves to be independent
from-from Baghdad.Michael Knights: So, at the moment, the discussion in Kurdistan
around independence, I think, has a very economic flavor. There's an
understanding that, if relations with Baghdad break down, the Kurds
would lose access to a number of-of economic aid supports. They would
also potentially have more complicates access to international security
assistance and that they might well face greater legal challenges at
exporting their oil. I don't detect inside the Kurdish leadership a
near term ambition to push quickly for independence -- more to kind of
negotiate a kind of amicable divorce over a period of five to ten years
with the Baghdad government.Chair Bob Corker: You want to say anything to that?Hardin Long: No, I would only add that at the moment when one spends
time in Kurdistan you get the feeling that there's a tremendous amount
of internal house cleaning that needs to be done. There's a lot of
political friction and difficulties between the different Kurdish
parties. And much of the economic state building program in Kurdistan
is on hold. Chair Bob Corker: Mmm-hmm.Hardin Long: So in terms of Kurdistan becoming a viable state
anytime in the immediate future, again, there seems to be a separation
from the rhetoric that we hear from the Kurds and then the closed door
conversations about what they really think is in the realm of the
possible.Chair Bob Corker: I think the fact that they'd have to ship their oil
through Turkey and could well become a sub-state of Turkey if they're
not careful obviously causes concern. And so to have a non amicable
relationship with Iraq would be very much not in their interest.

It is 2017.

Two weeks away from the start of this never-ending war that began in 2003.

And US politicians are still dickering around about the fate of Kurdistan?

It's the northern region, it's semi-autonomous.

The fate of the KRG should have been resolved back in 2007.

The Iraqi Constitution declared that (Article 140).

The US State Dept has never supported it while, on every other issue, insisting that 'the law' must be respected.

It's in the Iraqi Constitution.

It needs to be implemented.

But why has that not happened?

Because of the conversation we transcribed above.

Oh, no, Turkey might have a greater say . . .

It's not about peace. It's about control of the oil.

And Ben can have a fit in Congress all he wants playing the elderly drama queen.

Reality: If US President Donald Trump's remarks meant that the Iraqi
government would not allow a permanent US military presence in Iraq?
That would be a good thing.

Reality: His remarks don't matter. The US installed the Iraqi
government, it can't survive without US troops. That's why Barack was
able to get the Memo of Understanding -- that no one wants to report on
despite the fact that it continues to govern the US military presence in
Iraq. He got that after the SOFA expired.

And Nouri al-Maliki did not say "no" to renewing the SOFA, he said no to
the what he saw as the limited number of US troops Barack was offering
(that would have protected Nouri's government). Nouri did want a few
thousands, he wanted at least 15,000.

That was the breaking point.

And we should also note that over five years ago, the RAND Corporation
was noting that the unresolved issue of Kirkuk was one of the great
fault lines in any future of Iraq.

But no one pays attention until they're forced to.

When things 'calm down' in Iraq, they'll be forced to.

Chair Bob Corker: Let me ask you, the PMF. One of you mentioned
those that are aligned with Iran. Certainly, they should not be a part.
Look, most of them are aligned with Iran so? I mean there's a law
that's been passed relative to the popular mobilization forces. It
looks like they're going to be a part of the security infrastructure
there. They are very much aligned with Iran -- most of them. There are
a few that aren't, as you alluded to Mr. Lang [Long], but I mean this
is a fact of life there. I'm just wondering. Uhm - uh, I don't see
this not being a fact of life and are you guys sensing there's
something, some different outcome, that may occur with the PMF other
than them being part of the security infrastructure there?Hardin Long: I think the real danger at this stage would be if you
see the PMF -- or elements of the PMF, particularly the 3 or 4 large
ones that are backed by Iran -- the extent to which they remain outside
of the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] -- and I think that there probably is
a degree of intention inside of them to do so -- that becomes a danger
point. And then, for us, it's the danger of the investment that we make
in the Iraqi Security Forces going forward to serve as a balance
against that that becomes crucial.Michael Knights: I know that the PMF are very splintered, they're
very difficult to consolidate under one electoral banner or under one
common control arrangement. So splintering them down to their
irreconcilable elements like Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq versus other elements
related to the [Shrine?] militias -- and even Bard, there's always a
potential that a group like Badr which is the largest PMF entity could
be mainstreamed over time and could be broken down into subcomponents
with a clever policy. Also anywhere where the Iraqi Security Forces is
present, they're able to effectively counter-balance the PMF presence.
In a place like Basra for instance where there has been no major Iraqi
army since 2013, we see true breakdown and true militia control.

War Crimes don't get discussed.

Apparently, it would 'sully' the halls of Congress.

Instead we fret that the ones carrying out War Crimes are 'too close' to Iran.

It's all a big dog and pony show and it's all depressing and disgusting.

However, Congress isn't the only place for whoring.

There's always THE NEW YORK TIMES.

Judith Miller, at her worst, wasn't as bad as Rukmini Callimachi, a War
Hawk who's now covering Iraq and can't stop slobbering over the Iraqi
military -- I've been told that Rukmini has seen War Crimes carried out
as she has been embedded and has not reported those -- that comes from
two journalists in Iraq.